In yet another bizarre turn for Everett resident Shawna Forde, she has now been arrested in Pima County, Arizona for the murder of Raul Flores, 29, and his 9-year-old daughter, Brisenia, and injuring the mother of the family.
Readers may recall she was beaten in her home December, a week after her husband was shot three times. She reported being shot the following month.
Two other people, Jason Eugene Bush and Albert Robert Gaxiola, were arrested with Forde. They are charged with two counts of first degree murder, one of first degree burglary, and one of aggravated assault.
Detectives say the three broke into the Flores home, pretending to be police officers, on the evening of May 30, shot the three family members. The mother survived, called 911, and shot Bush. Detectives say they were looking for drugs and money.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said of Forde, "If you look at her history closely, and you know what we know, she is at best a pyschopath."
Forde was essentially kicked out of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps several years ago and formed her own group, Minutemen American Defense.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 12, 2009 10:01 PM | Email ThisThe sheriff nails it -- something many posters on this site were unable or unwilling to do last January when pudge first posted about this lunatic's antics.
The wingnut militia have been quite busy lately. They need to be watched more closely.
Posted by: scottd on June 13, 2009 08:43 AMCertainly, if that were true, scottd would have been locked up years ago, along with the rest of his leftist moron buddies.
Posted by: Hinton on June 13, 2009 08:49 AMI didn't say mental illness is a function of politcal persussion -- plenty of nuts on the left, too. My comment was directed towards people who are comfortable with arming nuts and encouraging them to take matters into their own hands. But that's not you, right?
Posted by: scottd on June 13, 2009 09:01 AMThe most BIZARRE turn will be this nut job murderer getting sympathetic comments.
Murdered a 9 year old girl!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 13, 2009 09:10 AMActually, I don't wonder at all. :-)
The time for denouncing these idiots is before they hurt someone. It's pretty easy to stand up against them after the fact.
Posted by: scottd on June 13, 2009 09:21 AMWith the information currently available I am not sure which story is more believable. I choose to withhold judgment until more facts surface.
Posted by: deadwood on June 13, 2009 09:24 AMForde worked with one group of nuts
False.
then formed a new group of nuts -- largely with the same agenda and endorsing many of the same tactics
But none of the "same agenda" or "tactics" that are relevant here. The "agenda" and "tactics" that led to this murder -- if she is indeed behind it -- are significantly different from anything the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps advocates.
The time for denouncing these idiots is before they hurt someone.
But you should do so based on facts, not your paranoid delusions.
there's been plenty of evidence that Forde is a nut
I never implied otherwise. Why are you telling me this?
Whether she is guilty of a particular crime is a matter for the legal system to decide, after properly considering the evidence.
Again: why are you telling ME this? Shouldn't you be telling Mike?
I never implied otherwise.
Correct. You've been silent on Forde's nuttiness in your posting and commenting about her.
Posted by: scottd on June 13, 2009 09:37 AM"if this were one of the nutjobs on YOUR side"
side? Maybe i'm wrong here,
and i look forward to your explanation of the 'sides' and your position,
but there are two sides here. The side of the premeditating murderers and the side of the murdered.
So, if your implication is that I side with the murdered and the law in wanting this nutjob locked up forever, you are correct.
The presumption of innocence applies to the judge and jury that will hear this case. As I'm not an AZ resident, but a commenter - my opinion in the case of a nutjob with a history of violent criminal associations accused of premeditated murder of a CHILD is that she is guilty.
You are correct, we don't know all the evidence against her, but we know that she was arrested and accused of the worst crime, and that there is an eye witness.
So, pudge, what is your opinion? You think she is innocent, or guilty?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 13, 2009 09:46 AM"yeah, I was a bit shocked that callers on the podcast were asserting her [Shawna Forde] story was false.
I didn't post this on the main page specifically because I just don't want more people to jump on the "she's lying" bandwagon. Makes me sad."
SOURCE: http://soundpolitics.com/public/2009/01/shawna_forde_gives_exclusive_i.html
You "sad" now pudge that a 9 year old girl has been MURDERED?
Or maybe you are more upset cuz I have jumped on the 'Shawna Forde is a nutjob murderer' bandwagon?
Really? Would that be the Muslim convert who murdered an Army recruiter?
Or would that be the registered Maryland Democrat - who believes 9/11 was an inside job - who murdered a guard at the Holocaust Museum?
Or would it be the right-wing gunman who murdered an abortion doctor in church?
Despite your weak attempts to paint anybody to the left of you as some whacked-out right-wing nutjob capable of shooting up the joint, please recognize lunacy isn't bound by political persuasion.
Posted by: jimg on June 13, 2009 11:07 AMMs. Forde simply used the issue and her illegitimate, flimsy org. as a front in order to perpetuate her psychopathic desires.
Her supposed 'Cause' and certain shady figures drawn to it, were used by her to gain money, drugs, power, and notariety for herself. It's as simple as that.
As far as the legitimate Minuteman movement is concerned, and all the great American Patriots involved in its non-violent assistance of border enforcement of zillions of scumbag illegal alien insurgents - Semper Fidelis!
to the right ...
Posted by: jimg on June 13, 2009 11:09 AMBut I have to wonder, can issues like this, the holocaust shooting, and the abortion murder really be decoupled from the political debate in which these actions are justified? There is this odd, curious stoking of the fire by some in the conservative media that I never saw on Daily Kos. When Glenn Beck says that FEMA is preparing concentration camps, why wouldn't an armed nut stand up to kill?
I think the conservative outlets need to evaluate the amount of anger that is being generated by lying and saying that Obama said we're a Muslim nation or by vilifying his every act as a government oppressing the population.
The conservative movement is a proud movement, but the anger I see sometimes (even on this site) is simply unhealthy. However, I understand that fringe folks like these shooters represent no values of the GOP and are simply just insane people. But when you rile up folks, you might rile up some crazy folks too.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 13, 2009 12:05 PMShrug. You wrote @7:
Forde worked with one group of nuts, got kicked out, and then formed a new group of nuts -- largely with the same agenda and endorsing many of the same tactics. The main difference is that her group of nuts has gotten at least one innocent person killed. Some other groups haven't, yet.
The time for denouncing these idiots is before they hurt someone.
Quite clearly you are expessing the fear that the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, based on their agenda and tactics and that they are "nuts" and "idiots," is likely to "hurt someone." This fear is irrational and delusional ... which is the definition of paranoia.
Posted by: pudge on June 13, 2009 12:32 PMCorrect. You've been silent on Forde's nuttiness in your posting and commenting about her.
Are you implying I have done something wrong? Be precise.
Posted by: pudge on June 13, 2009 12:34 PM"When Glenn Beck says that FEMA is preparing concentration camps"
No, it is actually just the opposite. GB set out to debunk that rumor, not promote it. That rumor has been going around the internet for some time.
Posted by: joer on June 13, 2009 12:45 PMI'm more concerned about that.
Posted by: Mark on June 13, 2009 12:59 PMYes, obviously (to you, and most people here).
But I have to wonder, can issues like this, the holocaust shooting, and the abortion murder really be decoupled from the political debate in which these actions are justified?
Yes. Absolutely. That is what we do every time an act of eco-terror happens, isn't it?
There is this odd, curious stoking of the fire by some in the conservative media that I never saw on Daily Kos.
Then you don't read it much. Nary a day went by for eight years when someone on DailyKos or some other leftwing site wasn't calling for violent action against Bush or other conservatives ... usually to the cheers of his fellow travelers. Even this year, with the GOP out of power, I've heard near-constant calls for Cheney or Rice or some other Republican to be waterboarded ... for example.
When Glenn Beck says that FEMA is preparing concentration camps, why wouldn't an armed nut stand up to kill?
When Keith Olbermann says that Bush was planning to torture American citizens ...
I think the conservative outlets need to evaluate the amount of anger that is being generated by lying and saying that Obama said we're a Muslim nation or by vilifying his every act as a government oppressing the population.
Like Olbermann and Air America and HuffPo did? HuffPo, you may recall, actually printed an article saying Bush was worse than Hitler because Hitler meant well. Air America lies all the time. Olbermann is like Hannity except worse, trying to blow up and distort every little thing to make his political opponents into the "worst people in the world."
I am not advocating for the anger and flame-stoking and lying and misleading, of course. I frankly don't like watching Beck or Hannity because of these things. But I see no justification for saying it's more on the right than on the left. That's just nonsense.
May all the victims rest in peace. I have a nine-year-old. Imagine, an innocent child, murdered. Just makes one sick to their very soul. These nutjobs feed on violence. Their in love with their guns......sick, sick, sick, sick.
Posted by: BrokenArrow on June 13, 2009 01:36 PMHannity and Beck "anger and flame-stoking and lying and misleading?"
Provide an example please?
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 13, 2009 02:21 PMThe anger on the left at times has been harsh, but I don't think it was ever as acceptable as Beck or Hannity, or worse, stoke for the right. It did not get the point where people questioned whether Bush was "still" a Muslim (op-ed in the Washington Times) or if he was even American citizen. If your "President" is not constitutionally eligible to be President, then why not step up? The left purposefully tempered down its opinions on Bush in the 2004 election to not seem radical. The right needs to do the same now, in my opinion.
The Oklahoma City Bombing wasn't a mainstream political act, obviously, but it was motivated by outrage stoked from the extreme, extreme loony right. Palling around with terrorists, birth certificate questions, and even portending that his supporters are brainwashed feed into a very unhealthy element of the political spectrum.
Again, this does fall outside of the spectrum of sane political debate and I'm not blaming either side for these actions. But more and more we realize that stoking extreme anger can lead to terrible actions.
Agian, I want to make it very clear that republicans aren't responsible for these actions. These are crazy folks egged on by other nutjobs.
Amused: no.
Kudos, pudge. :)
katomar, the difference is that there haven't been murders in the recent weeks about the items you're talking about. I am specifically talking about the recent murders and even going back as far as the OKC bombing which was about similar resentment regarding Waco.
I don't know how you could look at recent shootings and not realize that perhaps the DHS should be studying extreme-right elements. Right, make it extreme-left too to be fair if you want, but we've had domestic terrorist attacks before and we should research the loons who may strike again.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 13, 2009 03:45 PMThe anger on the left at times has been harsh, but I don't think it was ever as acceptable as Beck or Hannity, or worse, stoke for the right.
You're wrong.
It did not get the point where people questioned whether Bush was "still" a Muslim (op-ed in the Washington Times) or if he was even American citizen.
No, instead, it gets to the point where they seriously question whether he is worse than Hitler. I think that's a lot worse than questions about religion and citizenship.
If your "President" is not constitutionally eligible to be President, then why not step up?
If your "President" -- who was never legitimately elected, the left tells us -- is a "war criminal" who stole the presidency and murdered thousands of Iraqis and Americans, then why not step up?
The left purposefully tempered down its opinions on Bush in the 2004 election to not seem radical.
First, no, it did not. It ramped it WAY up in the 2004 elections. Second, it only got even more ramped up over the following four years.
The right needs to do the same now, in my opinion.
Fine. But all I am saying is the left has no real business making this claim, since they were MUCH WORSE with Bush as President.
The Oklahoma City Bombing wasn't a mainstream political act, obviously, but it was motivated by outrage stoked from the extreme, extreme loony right.
Yes, so extreme that it bears no resemblance to the rest of the right, such that it's meaningless to bother saying what side of the political fence it's on.
Palling around with terrorists, birth certificate questions, and even portending that his supporters are brainwashed feed into a very unhealthy element of the political spectrum.
And this is worse, how, than the incessant claims that Bush was selling our soldiers' blood for his own profit; that he cheated to get into office; that HIS supporters are brainwashed and evil?
Again, this does fall outside of the spectrum of sane political debate and I'm not blaming either side for these actions. But more and more we realize that stoking extreme anger can lead to terrible actions.
Sure. That's all fine. The problem comes when you say the right is worse than the left. That's just stupid.
I don't know how you could look at recent shootings and not realize that perhaps the DHS should be studying extreme-right elements.
The problem is that is NOT what the DHS said. If there's known wackos or terrorists or dangerous elements, of course they should be watched. The problem comes when they try to tie normal law-abiding people and organizations to these groups, such as saying a disgruntled vet is at significant risk of becoming a domestic terrorist ... or trying to make it seem like the right stokes these sorts of flames more than the left does.
"Message From Shawna Forde, Executive Director, MAD
"Even if the government refuses to consider the border a issue we as minutemen will not stand by while American jobs are lost and America becomes the future of corruption and a playground for those who trespass."
This is an implication of some kind of traitorous activity by those with whom she disagrees. People to the left of her don't "Refuse" to consider the border an issue -- they have a different policy on border issues. Frankly, they just don't see illegal mirgration as all that horrible. but it's not treasonous to take that view. It is demonizing and polarizing and it certainly lays the groundwork for killing liberals, if you go around implying they're treasonous per se.
Scary, isn't it?
"We will expose and report what we know and find, we will recruit the serious and train the revolutionist,"
the revolutionist? That's a clear implication of armed andillegal violence. Holy Shit!
What's wrong with working within the system and trying to win elections and stuff?
She sounds a little bit like Lenin !
"time for words have passed the time for bravery and conviction are now. I shall lead you to challenge yourself and your American heart into the future of what was once a great country and will be again but at what price?
The patriot is a brave yet scarce man hated and scorned by most. but when the cause succeeds the timid shall join for then there is no price to being a patriot."
This is implying illegal, armed revolution again. Wow. That's insane when you can run your folks in elections aand try to win power fairly and democratically! The way 95% of all conservatives today would agree is the right way to get power!
"As your rights are slowly stripped away"
by Bush??
"and you walk out your door look right and left and know you are the only true American standing on your block until your light is extinguished and all true Americans are extinguished into silence and slavery of a near future.
We at Minutemen American Defense give you a home, a conviction and determination to believe in freedom and to fight for it."
Wow --everyone else isn't a true American, they are "extinguishing" the true Americans, this is a clear call to direct action and pronto!
The whole notion that revolutionary action has to be taken is very unAmerican; our forefathers fought for the vote, for democracy, and pretty much we've got it -- if you want change, why just run some candidates and try to beat the Democrats or the open borders crowd if that is your thing.
I'm sure about 95% of all conservatives would agree with using democratic methods.
It's nice to see some of the comments here denouncing this lunatic Shawna btw.
Anyway, I'm sure we're all united against these kinds of lousy crimes and this kind of unAmerican talk that demonizes fellow Americans who are just seeking to get their way democratically, just like 95% of all conservatives do, too.
Oh , here's a question, I'm sure the second amendment scholars on this site will have the answer. Doesn't the Washington state constitution right to bear arms also have a ban on any organizing of any armed group of men?
If so, I wonder how any minuteman type group could legally operate here in the first place (assuming they were armed -- unarmed would be totally okay, obviously)?
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on June 13, 2009 04:10 PMThis is an implication of some kind of traitorous activity by those with whom she disagrees.
Yes, many people of all political stripes do this. Olbermann does it five nights a week. Thomas Paine made a career out of it. While annoying and depressing, it's not new.
It is demonizing and polarizing and it certainly lays the groundwork for killing liberals, if you go around implying they're treasonous per se.
So Olbermann is laying the groundwork for killing conservatives?
Scary, isn't it?
Yes, your tortured reasoning is a bit offputting.
the revolutionist? That's a clear implication of armed andillegal violence.
No, it's not, in fact.
She sounds a little bit like Lenin !
You sound a lot like a nutjob.
This is implying illegal, armed revolution again.
No, it's not.
"As your rights are slowly stripped away" by Bush??
I'd think Forde would say yes, by Bush, and Obama, and most politicians and judges. She was no fan of Bush, IIRC, when I heard her speak at an illegal immigration rally.
Wow --everyone else isn't a true American, they are "extinguishing" the true Americans, this is a clear call to direct action and pronto!
Yep, once again, she sounds like Olbermann.
The whole notion that revolutionary action has to be taken is very unAmerican ; our forefathers fought for the vote, for democracy
A stupider thing you have never said. The fought for the right to vote ... how? THROUGH REVOLUTIONARY ACTION. It's sad I have to spell it out for you.
and pretty much we've got it
In your opinion. No one is obligated to agree with it, especially when the Democrats have been making consistent assaults against democracy for years. Did you know that the Democrats have all but abolished the secret ballot in Washington State? You probably don't. They are also, of course, attempting to subvert the electoral college through extraordinarily undemocratic means.
I do not advocate armed revolution at this time or the forseeable future, but arguing that it is un-American is just idiotic.
Anyway, I'm sure we're all united against ... this kind of unAmerican talk that demonizes fellow Americans who are just seeking to get their way democratically
Then you will be denouncing Olbermann?
Doesn't the Washington state constitution right to bear arms also have a ban on any organizing of any armed group of men?
No, it absolutely does not.
Excellent "No," at #33
Clears up your credibility on that one eh?
How far does this duplicity of yours go anyway?
Wow, you call me torturer. That's not very nice. Anyway on the internet there's a lot of lattitude so no big deal but let me ask you this:
why so hostile? what is it that i've ever done or said that would make you want to treat me like an enemy? What is it that makes you mad just because someone shows up and makes comments?
I htought Americans believed in the free interchange of ideas, and I don't see any sign on this site saying "please do not post unless you are conservative."
You're just not very hospitable or courteous.
Okay, anyway, glad you agree with me that this nut Shawna is implying some kind of traitorous activity by those with whom she disagrees.
If you agree with me, why call me names?
It is demonizing and polarizing and it certainly lays the groundwork for killing liberals, if you go around implying they're treasonous per se.
So Olbermann is laying the groundwork for killing conservatives?
Pudge, I don't know exactly what comment of Olbermanyou're referring to, so it's hard to respond. But I don't recall him saying it's time for a revoluation or time to stop with words, and so on. What I recall from wathcing him sometimes is he's protesting against conservatives who say things that are wrong.
You're using a tit for tat approach, btw. It's really funny, isn't it, that when I say something you agree with about Shawna, instead of just agreeing, you try to go create division and discord.
I find that very interesting. It's like you guys are just hostile against people who disagree with you.
"Scary, isn't it?
Yes, your tortured reasoning is a bit offputting."
Awwwww you hurt my fweelings by calling me names.
But wait, you just AGREED with me. I don't get it. Does my mere presence or commenting just make you feel angry, threatened, hostile, so that you have to have a knee jerk hostile response like you're in one gang on a schoolyard and I'm in another one?
Isn't that childish, pudge?
"the revolutionist? That's a clear implication of armed andillegal violence.
No, it's not, in fact."
Well, it is a bit unclear. but in my book "revolution" means "totally turning things upside down" and it implies she's not into democratic methods.
She sounds a little bit like Lenin !
You sound a lot like a nutjob.
More name calling. What is your definition of revoluation, pudge? What do you think she meant?
Why is it that the mere presence of conversation and communication just makes you call names, all angry and hostile like?
Do you think America needs a revolution now?
that our democratic institutions shouldn't be followed?
Or, are you just "hitting back" because someone is, in your perception a liberal or something?
This is implying illegal, armed revolution again.
No, it's not.
Well to me it does. What's revolution mean to you? Do you think Reagan or FDR won a "revolution" when they won a majority vote? I think the English language understanding of revolution -- typically used for MExican, french, American, Chinese, Russian etc. -- is an overthrow of an order by means that are illegal under the old order.
Do you think it means "winning an election by majority vote"? Where would you get that idea?
"As your rights are slowly stripped away" by Bush??
I'd think Forde would say yes, by Bush, and Obama, and most politicians and judges. She was no fan of Bush, IIRC, when I heard her speak at an illegal immigration rally.
Oh pudge, you know i was trying to bug you guys with that Bush comment, and for once you didn't take the bait.
Touche.
Wow --everyone else isn't a true American, they are "extinguishing" the true Americans, this is a clear call to direct action and pronto!
Yep, once again, she sounds like Olbermann.
Wow, you mean Olberman formed a minuteman group and said we need a revolution and that Americans were being extinguished? I had not heard that.
But again, glad you agree with me.
The whole notion that revolutionary action has to be taken is very unAmerican ; our forefathers fought for the vote, for democracy
A stupider thing you have never said.
Mr. Pudge, I stand by my words. They fought for democracy. Now that we have it, we can use it, and armed violence to overthrow it is WRONG.
The fought for the right to vote ... how? THROUGH REVOLUTIONARY ACTION. It's sad I have to spell it out for you.
Pudge, don't be a jackass, okay? We all know they had an armed revolution. You're just insulting because you really have nothing to say against what I am saying. For example, I bet you DO believe in our American democracy and you cherish it, and our founding fathers, just like me!
don't you?
and pretty much we've got it
In your opinion. No one is obligated to agree with it, especially when the Democrats have been making consistent assaults against democracy for years.
Well, by assaults I don't know what you mean.
Are you saying our government is so illegitmate that it's time to take up armed struggle?
If so, I'm going to report you to the FBI buddy.
Did you know that the Democrats have all but abolished the secret ballot in Washington State? You probably don't.
Um, you're right, I don't know that.
but anyway there are plenty of democracies that don't even have a secret ballot....fact is, the republicans lost the last big election. Are you saying that was illegal or criminal or immoral?
Didn't your side just plain old lose?
They are also, of course, attempting to subvert the electoral college through extraordinarily undemocratic means.
Um, not sure what you are referring to. Please be more specific. There's some movement afoot to have states vote to cast their electoral college vote as per the national popular vote outcome....are you talking about that?
that's a legal movement, it's being carried out in the open, legislators doing it are running in elections, and if it's illegal you can file a court case and take it up to the supreme court.
It's kind of scary to hear you talk like you think the Democratic party is doing something illegal.
Are you gathering guns and organizing folks to do anything violent, pudge? If so, I really would report you to the FBI.
That would be illegal, as I am sure you know.
I do not advocate armed revolution at this time or the forseeable future,
wow, okay, I don't have to report you to the FBI.
but arguing that it is un-American is just idiotic.
No, Mr. pudge, it is you who is the village idiot. I didn't say revolution is always wrong. I didn't say our American revolution was wrong. I said arguing TODAY in America where we have a pretty good democracy that we need revolution is wrong.
You seem to take my words and twist them into something I didn't say. So let me spell it out for you:
where people have the vote
armed revolution is wrong.
You do agree with that don't you?
Anyway, I'm sure we're all united against ... this kind of unAmerican talk that demonizes fellow Americans who are just seeking to get their way democratically
Then you will be denouncing Olbermann?
No, I'm not sure what comments you are referrng to. Let me know what you are referring to and I will let you know if I denounce him or his comments. I certainly denounce this Shawna nutjob, or anyone plotting armed revoolution in the USA.
Doesn't the Washington state constitution right to bear arms also have a ban on any organizing of any armed group of men?
No, it absolutely does not.
Okay, you made me look it up. Are you being coy? Because this is what it says?
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
So in a technical way you're right pudge -- it doesn't ban an organized group of men -- but in a larger sense you're wrong -- it allows very specfically a ban on organized groups of men...given the threat posed by this nutjob Shawna, I would certainly back that law.
Pudge, what really strikes me is here we are facing a nutjob Shawna and basically everything I say against her you have to take issue with -- even when you agree with me -- and it sort of seems very hostile and angry.
Are you just mad that liberals exist and that a liberal won the last big election?
Because that's fine. but really it's the will of the electorate and at another level, you should respect it. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: you are engaged in step one of a multi step process that took Shawna down a bad road.
You are trying to demonize me!
You are trying to demonize liberals!
You are implying that democracy is getting to be illegitimate in Washington state!
You are NOT saying "Why yes Torture Lawyer, of course as Americans we all believe in our democracy so we would never want a revolution."
Now, you're not anywhere near that Shawns nutjob. but it's like a gateway. You start thinking Americans who disagree with you aren't worthy of basic respect. You get all polarized. You demonize. Then you're about 5-10% down that road Shawna took.
I ask you to reconsdier your views. All I said was our nation's democracy is strong and armed revoluation against it is wrong. Won't you join with me in that statement, pudge?
Won't you defend the democracy that our forefathers created?
I trust in you to stand up for America and our democracy and denounce the whole notion of revolution against our democracy.
Because part of democracy, pudge, is being a good loser, and I don't perceive that you are being a good loser.
In fact, you sound all whiny and like a bad loser.
Finally, do you agree with me that a plain reading of the second amendmetn would mean that folks would have the right to have hydrogen bombs?
I missed it if you have addressed that. I will tell you my opinion. I think that would be bad. I think that could lead to a hydrogen bomb going of and killing people. And so in part based on that scenario, and my "empathy" for the 20 million people it could kill, I really don't think the Second Amendment would prevent congress from outlawing hydrogen bombs being owned by citizens.
don't you agree pudge?
An letme tell you a bit more.
Because of that, it kind of makes me think this whole "literal" approach to our constitution just doesn't work and could not have been intended by our founding fathers, and is, well, to put it plainly, just totally insane and unreasonable.
Do you agree, or do you think we have a right to have hydrogen bombs?
Now if you respond, I would really like it if you didn't call names, or change the subject to Olberman or some remarks that you don't even provide, but just answer the questions, because when you don't answer it makes it look like you don't HAVE an answer pudge.
Have a nice day!
Looking at the kind of danger that this Shawna nutjob poses, I would support a ban on any organized groups that are not under state government control. And that law would be legal.
I think when you said it "absolutely does not" without explaining it DOES mention armed groups of men, that was kind of sneaky, pudge. You should have looked it up and explained.
Anyway, fortunately
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on June 13, 2009 05:35 PMBut a guy trying to shoot up everyone at the Holocaust museum isn't discussed hardly at all.
I mean, come on, that guy von Brunn was really racist and vile. That's racism buddy. Making a few remarks or even ruling the "wrong" way in one case out of 3,000 doesn't really seem like the same thing as the kind of racism that makes you pick up gun and try and go shoot Jews and others at a Holocaust museum.
I guess the point is, why is the one thing so dangersous it merits all these comments, when a guy with a gun trying to hunt down Jews and museum goers doesn't merit any commenting?
Pretty weird, right? That guy von Brunn jsut turns my stomach. doesn't he turn yours?
Posted by: Torture Lawyer again on June 13, 2009 05:40 PMI don't know exactly what comment of Olberman you're referring to, so it's hard to respond.
EVERY WEEK he is on MSNBC attacking conservatives for being un-American and treasonous. And yet I never see you liberals attacking him for the EXACT SAME THINGS you attack conservatives for. My mentioning Olbermann is not changing the subject: you are making these types of statements the subject.
Indeed, you yourself are doing exactly what MAD is doing, that you are complaining about, calling a call for revolution "unAmerican."
But I don't recall him saying it's time for a revoluation or time to stop with words
You also never saw this MAD group advocate violence. You dishonestly said they did, but it's clear they didn't.
Well, it is a bit unclear.
Thank you for admitting your dishonesty.
but in my book "revolution" means "totally turning things upside down" and it implies she's not into democratic methods.
Your book is stupid. "Revolution" is used in many contexts, and RARELY does it mean that. The whole Ron Paul movement used "REVOLUTION" as its rallying cry ... revolution through explicitly democratic methods.
What do you think she meant?
I don't have any opinion about what she meant. I am only pointing out that you were wrong and dishonest to say she necessarily meant armed violence.
Wow, you mean Olberman formed a minuteman group and said we need a revolution and that Americans were being extinguished?
No, I mean Olbermann calls his opponents un-American and traitors and says we need to throw them out of office or our rights and our country will fall to ruin. Same basic message.
Mr. Pudge, I stand by my words.
Then you're stupid. The Founders stood explictly FOR the use of armed revolution. That is the POINT of Independence Day.
We all know they had an armed revolution.
So why are you calling them un-American?
For example, I bet you DO believe in our American democracy and you cherish it, and our founding fathers, just like me!
You're the one calling our Founders un-American.
Are you saying our government is so illegitmate that it's time to take up armed struggle? If so, I'm going to report you to the FBI buddy.
Don't continue to be so stupid. If I meant to say that, I would say that. However, there's nothing illegal about saying we should take up armed struggle, so even if I did say that -- which I didn't -- so what? Report away.
Um, you're right, I don't know that.
Sad. It happened just in the last few years. Only one county has the right to secret ballot in this state.
Um, not sure what you are referring to. Please be more specific.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
that's a legal movement, it's being carried out in the open, legislators doing it are running in elections, and if it's illegal you can file a court case and take it up to the supreme court.
Shrug. All of that being true, it's still explicitly un-democratic and anti-constitutional. It is literally subverting the constitutional means of selecting the President, and it is attempting to force this new method on all states without their consent.
It's kind of scary to hear you talk like you think the Democratic party is doing something illegal.
Please stop lying. I did no such thing.
Are you gathering guns and organizing folks to do anything violent, pudge?
Are you still beating your mother?
You seem to take my words and twist them into something I didn't say.
Incorrect. I took your words to be PRECISELY what you ACTUALLY said. As opposed to what you are doing to MAD -- even though I disagree with them mostly, I'll still defend them from lies -- which is inventing things they never said.
where people have the vote armed revolution is wrong. You do agree with that don't you?
No, I don't agree with that. Of course not. It's stupid. Having the vote doesn't mean you have liberty, or have real power to effect change to that end. Iraqis under Hussein had the vote. Cuba has the vote. Obviously we are not as bad as those regimes, not even close, but the point is that the vote is not meaningful unless the rights of the people are respected.
Okay, you made me look it up. Are you being coy?
Not at all.
So in a technical way you're right pudge
Not in any way was I wrong.
it doesn't ban an organized group of men
So ... I was right, and you were wrong.
but in a larger sense you're wrong
Not remotely, in any way whatsoever.
it allows very specfically a ban on organized groups of men
Um. You didn't ask if the Constitution ALLOWS bans. You asked if it DOES BAN. It does not. You were wrong, and I was absolutely correct.
You are NOT saying "Why yes Torture Lawyer, of course as Americans we all believe in our democracy so we would never want a revolution."
Of course we don't want revolution. But no sane person would call revolution un-American.
I ask you to reconsdier your views.
You'd have to give me logical and principled reasons to. I won't hold my breath.
All I said was our nation's democracy is strong and armed revoluation against it is wrong. Won't you join with me in that statement, pudge?
That is NOT what you said. And today, yes, armed revolution is wrong. Tomorrow, I can't be sure.
Won't you defend the democracy that our forefathers created?
Not at the cost of liberty, no, of course not. If our government -- even with a democracy -- becomes destructive to our liberty, defending our liberty through our right to abolish our government is much more important than defending that government. That's what Thomas Jefferson firmly believed. Indeed, most of the Founders were far more wedded to the principles of the Declaration of Independence than of the Constitution (obviously).
In fact, you sound all whiny and like a bad loser.
That's because you're stupid. Nothing I said has anything to do with losing anything, except for my comments about the Democrats subverting the democratic process in eliminating the secret ballot and undemocratically subverting the electoral college. And I am not "whining" about that, just stating facts: the Democrats are actively hurting democracy. (We already had the NPV debate and I won't do it again, but I defy a single person of any political stripe to debate me about the loss of the secret ballot.)
Finally, do you agree with me that a plain reading of the second amendmetn would mean that folks would have the right to have hydrogen bombs?
Of course not. Not even remotely. "Arms" never meant and was never intended to mean "any conceivable weapon." Only a tortured reading could include hydrogen bombs.
Because of that, it kind of makes me think this whole "literal" approach to our constitution just doesn't work
Yeah, when you invent new meanings for words, by golly, a "literal" reading of the Constitution just doesn't work!
I would support a ban on any organized groups that are not under state government control
You're a fascist. Literally.
And that law would be legal.
Probably not. Just like you thought "shall [not] be construed as authorizing" meant "ban," you also appear to think "shall [not] be construed as authorizing" means "a law banning them would be legal." But that's not the case at all. It only means that this particular provision does not allow them. It could very well be that other provisions allow, or disallow, such groups. And of course, we know that most groups of armed men are protected not only under the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but also under the First Amendment right to association.
It depends on the purpose and character and activity of those groups.
I think when you said it "absolutely does not" without explaining it DOES mention armed groups of men, that was kind of sneaky, pudge.
It does NOT mention armed groups of men in the context of BANNING them, which is what you were talking about. Please stop being so blatantly dishonest.
But a guy trying to shoot up everyone at the Holocaust museum isn't discussed hardly at all.
Sotomayor's comments are about politics. This site is about politics. Von Brunn's actions had nothing significantly to do with politics, as far as I am concerned -- sure, he has his own political reasons, but it's nothing I care about -- so there's no reason to discuss him on this site.
Forde, of course, is involved in local politics and we've discussed her here before. She's news to this site. As Sotomayor is, being a nominee to the high court. IMO, Von Brunn is not.
Pudge, the mainstream right is more vitriolic than the mainstream left was. Yes, there are further extremes on the left, but people like Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck matter a lot more to the conservative consensus than someone like Olbermann.
And you know what, pudge? The vitrol for Bush didn't start during the campaign or four months into office. It started after he launched a war for the wrong reason. It started after we heard about torture and secret prisons and wiretapping. Bush wasn't Hitler at all, but he was a terrible President. His actions led to a lot of deaths, and while I'm sure he thought a great deal about his them before making a decision I was disappointed with him through and through. He left office with a terrible approval rating. The anger wasn't from the left anymore: it was nation-wide.
So Obama's been in office for four months, and what's happened? One fucking stimulus package and one fucking budget. The outright anger is simply unjustified and the anger existed during the campaign.
The same thing happened in Clinton's early months.
Pudge, I'm obviously a strong progressive, but I really don't think that this is just my biased, bigoted lens distorting reality. Maybe I am.
RE: OKC bombings - Yes, so extreme that it bears no resemblance to the rest of the right, such that it's meaningless to bother saying what side of the political fence it's on.
I mostly agree with you. I argue that the mainstream lunacy around Clinton at that time flamed the fire on these extreme elements.
Palling around with terrorists, birth certificate questions, and even portending that his supporters are brainwashed feed into a very unhealthy element of the political spectrum.
And this is worse, how, than the incessant claims that Bush was selling our soldiers' blood for his own profit; that he cheated to get into office; that HIS supporters are brainwashed and evil?
Because both the messiah bullshit and "palling around with terrorists" were mainstream political attacked launched by the McCain campaign. They weren't fringe elements. Everything you said was fringe left elements.
The problem is that is NOT what the DHS said. If there's known wackos or terrorists or dangerous elements, of course they should be watched. The problem comes when they try to tie normal law-abiding people and organizations to these groups, such as saying a disgruntled vet is at significant risk of becoming a domestic terrorist ... or trying to make it seem like the right stokes these sorts of flames more than the left does.
To be fair, I didn't follow the controversy around the DHS thing so I probably shouldn't have mentioned it.
The democrats as a whole aren't very left, where the republicans are much more right comparatively. Our party is much broader in terms of ideology (see Obama on gay marriage, Afghanistan, or a lot of our congressmembers who are pro-life like Sen. Reid). So while I'm certain that the extreme left flames the fire just as much as the extreme right, I think there's simply less extreme left in this country. Even "not-extreme, normal" left isn't part of the mainstream dialog as much as the typical right is since democrats has a large centerist coalition at the moment.
Olbermann wouldn't have a serious segment on whether Bush is worse than Hitler. Hannity legitimately ponders whether Obama said we're a Muslim nation. Are those equivalent claims? I don't know, but if you have to pull out "Muslim" all the time to rile up the base, maybe there's a wee-bit of intolerance there that just ain't healthy. Beck has his own loony theories. And Olbermann just has far less viewership.
And I'd love to say that Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh don't represent the GOP -- because all of them are blowhards in their own way -- but they do manage to drive the conversation in a way that Olbermann or Maddow or Daily Kos or HuffPo do not, even when Bush was in office.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 13, 2009 07:38 PMFirst of all, Torture Lawyer is really coming off as an idiot, and I honestly hope that some of these views are not his.
I don't think folks who live in a country where democracy can have meaningful changes on your government and principles should never turn to armed revolt. If it's to the point where the elections are illegitimate, or there is some person "above" those who are elected making decisions as in Iran, that is one thing. But in this country, we can change the law makers, the law enforcers, and the constitution that decides which laws are able to be made. Finally, we have an open election process without odd preconditions for running.
America would have to be unrecognizably different. I would have to say that Torture Lawyer probably assumed that our current electoral freedoms would be maintained and kept legitimate. In that case, I can see no justification for an armed revolt beyond terrorism. Even a severe breakdown in checks and balances could be fixed constitutionally by electing a new president and congress (each of which can change the court).
Posted by: John Jensen on June 13, 2009 08:05 PMWow. No. It's not even close.
The vitrol for Bush didn't start during the campaign or four months into office.
Yes, it did, though it got much worse after the election. The vitriol for Bush in May 2001 was MUCH worse than it is for Obama now.
So Obama's been in office for four months, and what's happened? One fucking stimulus package and one fucking budget.
... which have done far more economic and social damage than Wilson and FDR and Carter combined. In just four months. It will take us generations to get out of this hole, if we ever do.
The outright anger is simply unjustified and the anger existed during the campaign.
Ouright anger against Obama is perfectly justified for the stimulus package and budget, and it existed during the campaign because we knew this was what he was going to do. And it's only going to get worse as he works toward single-payer universal health care.
The same thing happened in Clinton's early months.
Yes, as Clinton was trying to give us HillaryCare in that first year, and do all sorts of other insane and immoral things, like federal funding for abortions (which Obama has resumed).
But it still pales in comparison to the vitriol against Bush. MOST Republicans I know dislike Obama, and disagree with him, and fear for our country under him. But they don't hate him. They don't think he is trying to destroy our country. They don't think he is evil. But this deep into Bush's presidency, that's what most Democrats were saying.
I argue that the mainstream lunacy around Clinton at that time flamed the fire on these extreme elements.
... and had nothing to do with the end result whatsoever.
Because both the messiah bullshit and "palling around with terrorists" were mainstream political attacked launched by the McCain campaign.
No. Both predated McCain's campaign against Obama.
They weren't fringe elements. Everything you said was fringe left elements.
Wow. Nonsense. All of what I mentioned was very, very mainstream left. Congresspeople accused Bush of stealing his Presidency. Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann and Al Franken ... this is not fringe.
The democrats as a whole aren't very left, where the republicans are much more right comparatively.
If you mean the electeds, no. The leadership of the Dems is much more to the left than the GOP leadership is to the right. If you mean active members, again, no: both parties attract mostly people away from center as activists. If you mean voters, that's only because the Dems successfully turned themselves into the "anti-Bush" party that didn't really stand for anything except for being against Bush.
Our party is much broader in terms of ideology
No, it's not.
(see Obama on gay marriage, Afghanistan, or a lot of our congressmembers who are pro-life like Sen. Reid)
And there's lots of pro-choice Republicans. And on gay marriage, don't make me laugh: Obama and Kerry and every other serious contender is against it because they had no other way to win the Midwest.
As to Afghanistan, what are you talking about? There's no partisan divide on Afghanistan, and never has been.
I think there's simply less extreme left in this country
And I think that's extremely myopic, unless you redefine extreme left to be moderate left.
democrats has a large centerist coalition at the moment.
And this coalition was based on only one thing: Bush is evil. Now it is based on staying in power. Shifting sands. Won't last, and you know it.
Olbermann wouldn't have a serious segment on whether Bush is worse than Hitler
No, but he'll have a serious segment on whether Bush is a traitor.
Hannity legitimately ponders whether Obama said we're a Muslim nation
Obama DID say that. In fact.
Granted, Obama did not mean it in the sense that our nation follows Muslim law, or somesuch. But within a few weeks Obama says "we are not a Christian nation" and "we're a Muslim country" and the juxtaposition was sloppy and unfortunate and just ASKING to be exploited. Put this all on Obama.
I don't know, but if you have to pull out "Muslim" all the time to rile up the base, maybe there's a wee-bit of intolerance there that just ain't healthy.
Shrug. I am extremely intolerant of this nation being turned into a Muslim nation. Shouldn't you be? Thankfully, Obama didn't mean it like that when he said it.
Olbermann just has far less viewership.
Not among Democrats.
And this is a cop-out anyway. We are not talking about who has more influence, we are talking about people who use irresponsible and vitriolic rhetoric, and how much of it there is. And hell, any random day on NPR over the last several years you got as much vitriol against Bush as you do now against Obama on Fox: they just said it with a better vocabulary.
I don't think folks who live in a country where democracy can have meaningful changes on your government and principles should never turn to armed revolt.
Of course. That's what I said. The problem is, however, in deciding if our democracy CAN have meaningful changes. There will never be agreement on the question. There wasn't in 1776.
... in this country, we can change the law makers, the law enforcers, and the constitution that decides which laws are able to be made. Finally, we have an open election process without odd preconditions for running.
All that's great, but not good enough: we need to have -- as our Founders made clear -- a fundamental set of liberties that are protected, including being protected from abuse by the majority.
We can have all you mention above and still not have liberty, and no serious prospects for it in the long term. It is not just about a functioning democracy (which I'd argue we only barely have): to think it is about democracy is to think that it is acceptable for a majority to oppress a minority.
There you go again, making stuff up. I haven't expressed any fear of the Minutemen, nor do I think they are conspiring to harm me. In my opinion, they are nuts and idiots. I don't expect you to agree, but simply disagreeing with you isn't the same as paranoia or any other psychological disorder. Have you talked to anyone about your own delusions of self-importance?
Posted by: scottd on June 14, 2009 12:23 AMCorrect. You've been silent on Forde's nuttiness in your posting and commenting about her.
Are you implying I have done something wrong?
Now why would you think that?
Posted by: scottd on June 14, 2009 12:26 AMYou are using the word "fear" in a way that I did not express or imply. I did not imply a personal fear; but you obviously expressed the concern that they would harm someone. This too is fear.
nor do I think they are conspiring to harm me
Nor did I imply that you do. The word "paranoia" does not exclusively refer to fear of harm to self.
simply disagreeing with you isn't the same as paranoia
I never implied that it is, and you're being dishonest, because I was quite clear: I said that your thinking that they are likely to hurt someone is paranoia. Nowhere did it even possibly appear to imply that my claim of paranoia was in any way related to disagreement, as I explicitly referred to your belief that they will harm someone.
Now why would you think that?
If you won't answer the question, and further explain what you are implying I did wrong if the answer is Yes, then I won't respond to you further.
Posted by: pudge on June 14, 2009 12:40 AMAnd you are using the word "fear" in a sense that has nothing to do with the definition of paranoia. Expressing a concern that groups like the Minutemen may harm someone is not delusional. You might disagree, but there are rational, evidence-based arguments that can be made to justify this concern.
If you won't answer the question, and further explain what you are implying I did wrong if the answer is Yes, then I won't respond to you further.
Fine with me...
Posted by: scottd on June 14, 2009 12:57 AMAnd soon every form of perversion will be protected.
Posted by: joebandmember on June 14, 2009 06:43 AM"yeah, I was a bit shocked that callers on the podcast were asserting her [Shawna Forde] story was false.
I didn't post this on the main page specifically because I just don't want more people to jump on the "she's lying" bandwagon. Makes me sad."
SOURCE: http://soundpolitics.com/public/2009/01/shawna_forde_gives_exclusive_i.html
In yet another post, pudge Bobs&Weaves.
So, pudge, what is your opinion? You think she is innocent, or guilty of killing a nine year old girl?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 14, 2009 07:57 AMYou go into the rathole with Mike then, if you cannot even explain your own statements.
Posted by: pudge on June 14, 2009 08:54 AMI don't need to explain my statements -- they speak for themselves, as do yours.
Posted by: scottd on June 14, 2009 09:04 AM"Forde, of course, is involved in local politics and we've discussed her here before. She's news to this site."
Shawna Forde has, of course, only been 'involved in local politics' as an extremist criminal nutjob.
When Forde pulled her stunt absurdly claiming she was raped and was called out for it, Bob&Weave felt "sad".
6 months later, pudge won't comment on the veracity of the charge of premeditated murder against the nutjob CHILD KILLING woman whose rallies he has attended.
Bob, Bob, Bob
Bob, Bob & Weave
"On Saturday, Arizona detectives were pursuing tips that members of Forde's group may have staged a home invasion robbery in Shasta Lake, Calif., on Monday.
The victims, friends of Forde's mother, reported being robbed at gunpoint of nearly $12,000 by two men who showed up at the door and presented badges claiming they were U.S. Marshals.
Truck driver Peter Myers, 48, said he recognized one of men who robbed him after he saw news reports about Forde's arrest and photographs of her co-defendants.
He said the man who directed the robbery in his home was Jason Eugene Bush, 34. The ex-convict from Eastern Washington is a Forde associate now accused of being the gunman in the Arivaca killings.
"That is the guy. He pointed a gun right at us," Myers said."
SOURCE: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090614/NEWS01/706149860&news01ad=1
Still 'sad' about Forde's negative PR pudge? :'-(
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 14, 2009 10:16 AMI never called her a friend, and never said I was sad about any negative PR. All I said was that it was sad that people were jumping to conclusions without the facts, accusing her of a hoax in her beating when there was no serious proof that it was a hoax: people coming to the conclusion she was lying based on nothing more than amateur analysis of a few blurry photos and armchair psychobabble.
I also said if she did perpetrate a hoax, she should be hammered for it, but that we should wait for the result of the Everett police report.
I won't put up with your lies any longer. Last warning. You contribute nothing and your posts won't be missed, so I won't feel bad in the slightest about removing them.
Wow. Just wow.
Before they even finished the machine recount in Florida, you guys were all over him.
You keep saying these things like you actually believe them. Like the Right can even hold a candle to the venom spewed by the Left.
For God's sakes, man - what world do you live in?
Just because you think your side's shit don't stink doesn't make it true. We deal with it every freaking day.
Posted by: jimg on June 14, 2009 03:26 PMIt will be interesting to see this unfold- something does smell rotten.
With the ink not even dry on the Ramos and Campean sentence commutation - anything is possible down this rabbit hole.
please mail your teabags to the Pima County Jail
Posted by: RevRayGreen on June 14, 2009 07:31 PMYou've got to be kidding, right? The left has mainstreamed hate to the extent that a leftist "comedian" can get laughs from an audience of jackasses when saying the 14yr old daughter of Sarah Palin got knocked up in the dugout by Alex Rodriguez. No outrage for this of course from women's groups, nor when this same low rent leacherous "comedian' described her as a "slutty fligh attendaant look". Sorry, John, but the left has a monopoly on hatred in this country and it's protected by the sympathetic ideologues in the lame stream media. Perhaps one day you'll take your blinder's off long enough to see this reality.
As for Shawna Forde, she probably is nuttier than squirrel droppings, but she is no more representative of the right than Bill Ayers is of the left (probably to a lesser extent since she's been ostracized by the right while Ayers is embraced by the left).
If you go far enough to the nutty right, you end up on the nutty left.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 15, 2009 05:09 AMPosted by: RevRayGreen"...
Only if Shawana follows you to hell RevRayGreen...
Posted by: juandos on June 15, 2009 05:14 AMWe had armed black panthers outside of a polling place in Philadelphia attempting to intimidate voters on election day. Was this obvious illegal act prosectuted by the Attorney general Eric Holder? No, of course not. All charges dropped.
I trust in you to stand up for America and our democracy and denounce the whole notion of revolution against our democracy.
Only if you denounce the actions of Obama's friend William Ayers. Obama would not even pass a background check for federal employment given his associations with radicals who've sought the overthrow of our Constitutional republic.
Because part of democracy, pudge, is being a good loser, and I don't perceive that you are being a good loser.
I'm sure you were part of the same whackjobs that declared "bush is not my president" or called him the illegitimate "resident" for about 3 years following the 2000 election.The left not only can't lose with grace, it has proven it can't win with grace either given the sustained vitriol on the leftist hate sites (like Daily KOS, HUFFpo and David Goldstains waste treatment plant at HA) even after winning the house, senate and presidency this past November.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 15, 2009 05:44 AMShawna Forde Statement
Forde is passing this out to her few friends and allies.
......Let me state very clearly to all:
I will not be taken off our objective or the goal of all ****** off Americans
wich is to secure these borders and deport every man, woman, child that is a
illegal alien and blaze a path toward those who aide and abet these foreign
invaders to further destroy this great nation that is my oath!!
You can beat me, rape me, stab me, shoot me, shoot my husband, kick my cat
HOLD MY PAST AGAINST ME, slander me, gossip, blog, report put me in public
square stripe me naked and cast stones while I bleed from head to toe.
I will stay the course and lead in this fight with every once of strength and
conviction I have I will not waist it on matters that do not pertain to this
very mission.
It is time for Americans to lock and load......
The entire concept of calling socialists/communists/fascists "right wing" has never made any sense whatsoever.
These people are neither "left" or "right". They are confused and delusional.
Posted by: scott on June 15, 2009 09:03 AMFunny . . . looks brown with big ears to me, and very little intellectual substance or purpose.
Proves that America is not inherently racist and completely eliminates any justification you might presume for playing the race card.
Also proves that you have nothing useful to contribute except comically hateful racial diversions.
Why won't you get over it?
"Funny . . . looks brown with big ears to me, and very little intellectual substance or purpose."
@76 Amused by Liberals at June 15, 2009 09:39 AM
"Commenting on a report posted to Facebook about a gorilla escape at a zoo in Columbia, S.C., Friday, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass wrote, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."
SOURCE: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/14/2009-06-14_pol_gorilla_is_related_to_first_lady.html
Whether it is absolutely true or not, there is a electorally significant perception that the Republican Party and the conservative movement is a racist party of old white men.
It is interesting that when a mentally unbalanced woman from Everett starts an organization of armed vigilantes and eventually gets arrested and charged with First Degree Murder of a 9 year old Hispanic child, the charge of racism is not applied to her.
When an Hispanic summa cum laude graduate of Princeton and twice confirmed Federal Judge makes a speech, her words are parsed (7 years later) and she is accused of racism.
While it may seem illogical to those (white men?) who have never encountered racism, the topic is a sensitive one to those who have.
If there is an intent to win elections, then maybe it would be wise to avoid the racially tinged humor, and the quick trigger reaction of 'reverse racism', and focus upon castigating the nutjobs (e.g. Forde, Tancredo, et al) in our own house.
Of course, we don't have to change.
We can continue to lose the hearts, souls and minds and votes of those with whom we have a lot in common with us. But do we really want to make it that easy for Democrats?
I had no idea that David Letterman was such a serious political activist. Of course, women's groups have condemned his joke -- which I don't care about because it was obviously a joke and obviously not about Willow.
But hey, if the spokeswoman of the modern populist GOP wants to have a fight with a late night comedian, then more power to her. She's already taken over People Magazine. What a serious and sober political figure Governor Palin is.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 15, 2009 12:42 PMThen I'm sure we could search through the archives and find you've rabidly denounced the longtime liberal blog "Smirkingchimp" which featured a side-by side comparison of Bush and a chimpanzee on the front page for years.
Of course you haven't. Political parody is political parody.
Truth be known and all racism BS aside, Obama with his big ears and silly smile looks a hell of a lot more like Curious George than GWB looked like that Chimp.
(But with you liberals it's all about race baiting, so I'm sure you'll tell me what a hateful racist I am.)
Anyone want to take the time to count how many times the race of a person has been mentioned on this board by the liberals versus the conservatives? It's probably 10 to 1.
Posted by: johnny on June 15, 2009 12:42 PMThen I'm sure we could search through the archives and find you've rabidly denounced the longtime liberal blog "Smirkingchimp" which featured a side-by side comparison of Bush and a chimpanzee on the front page for years.
Of course you haven't. Political parody is political parody.
Truth be known and all racism BS aside, Obama with his big ears and silly smile looks a hell of a lot more like Curious George than GWB looked like that Chimp.
(But with you liberals it's all about race baiting, so I'm sure you'll tell me what a hateful racist I am.)
Anyone want to take the time to count how many times the race of a person has been mentioned on this board by the liberals versus the conservatives? It's probably 10 to 1.
Posted by: johnny on June 15, 2009 12:42 PMEveryone who is a grown man knows that equating W with a chimp is a stupid joke, but a joke nonetheless. Everyone also knows that equating a black man with a chimp has serious racial undertones. I realize this double-standard makes the reserve-racist alarms go off -- as if your fundamental right to call black men monkeys has been infringed. But grow up: There is a stain of racism in our history, and folks are sensitive about it because we all regret that past. Moving forward doesn't mean ignoring that history or even our differences.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 15, 2009 12:50 PMI thought this might be a good thread but it was hijacked about post 22. Took me 5 minutes to scroll to the end, though.
Posted by: swatter on June 15, 2009 01:22 PMYou and BoyScoutBoy need to see your therapists more often.
Thanks for the laughs.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 15, 2009 01:38 PMHow come?
Obviously? Bristol wasn't even in the same state. It was Willow who was at the game. So how can it be obvious that the joke was about Bristol? And it was still bad even if it was.
I can't wait until Letterman starts making sex/slut jokes about Michelle Obama and one of her daughters.
I mean... if Dave isn't "political"...
"The results show clearly that the Republican Party today is first and foremost a political entity dominated by white Americans. Eighty-nine percent of rank-and-file Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, leaving just 5% who are Hispanic (of any race), 2% who are black, and 4% of other races."
SOURCE: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/Republican-Base-Heavily-White-Conservative-Religious.aspx
But the demographic trends are bound to turn, and then the anti-immigrant vigilantly and southern strategies are bound to pay dividends in electoral politics. HUH???
"Historical racist images and books dehumanizing African Americans in the 19th and early 20th century relied heavily on the Negro-ape metaphor, which was used to stereotype Blacks as lazy, dim and aggressive,"
SOURCE: http://www.physorg.com
I wrote that Obama is "brown" rather than "black" and therefore I am a racist.
When a woman being considered for a Supreme Court Justice-ship says that her judgment as a Latina is categorically better than a white man's judgment, it is not racist . . . it's . . . (those bigoted white male readers) "parsing."
Isn't this fun. When nothing really means anything but what liberals feeeel, then liberals can say whatever they like and it can be true (as far as they know.) Wheeee!!
BTW, why are we discussing BoyScoutBoy's rash generalizations, lies, and rank stupidity about race?
Originally this discussion was about BoyScoutBoy's rash generalizations, lies, and rank stupidity about Shawna Forde.
We don't know anything more about it except that some knotheads can invent whatever pathetic nonsense they like on any subject that comes along.
Nice job BoyScoutBuggerer
Yes, fact is, Letterman read the news and knew that Governor Palin and Willow were in NY. Otherwise, I'd like him to point out the news source that claimed that it was Governor Palin and Bristol who were in NY.
And he joked about her two nights in a row, even *after* everybody was pointing out that it was Willow who was in NY, and not Bristol.
Posted by: Gary on June 15, 2009 02:48 PMNot that you'll answer, but why does 'brown' or any color even come in to it?
Shawna Forde is an accused CHILD MURDERER who has a long history of unbalanced criminal associations.
It is not "bizarre" that she went off the deep end, it was entirely predictable.
Or maybe you think it is an M-13 set-up? Because she was such a threat to the Mexican mafia as evidenced by ????
Yes, in case some of you didn't know, one of Forde's arrested colleagues is a Hispanic man, Albert Robert Gaxiola.
This isn't about race, but that fact won't stop the race-baiters from implying otherwise.
You are correct, one of the three accused of the Pima county home invasion murders is Hispanic.
All 3 of the victims are Hispanic.
We may not like the racial implications and the race baiting, but the fact that her alleged murder plot included an Hispanic male perpetrator is not going to get near as much attention as the 2 dead and one injured family of Hispanics.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 15, 2009 03:25 PM"Wenatchee police "learned Bush has had long standing ties to Aryan Nations groups that commonly believe in white superiority over other races and have been known to be violent towards non-white races. He espoused these beliefs to associates in Wenatchee in 1997," the affidavit said."
SOURCE: http://heraldnet.com/article/20090615/NEWS01/906159982
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 15, 2009 03:31 PMSo your post is removed.
" Shawna Forde is an accused CHILD MURDERER who has a long history of unbalanced criminal associations. "
Name the criminal associations specifically.
" It is not "bizarre" that she went off the deep end, it was entirely predictable. "
You don't know any more than anyone (except her) what she did or did not do.
Given your propensity for shallow unreasoned commentary it is difficult to imagine you accurately predicting anything.
"Or maybe you think it is an M-13 set-up? Because she was such a threat to the Mexican mafia as evidenced by ???? "
Sounds like your sort-of thought. I rather doubt it but I don't know any more than you what she did or did not do.
Either way it is pretty clear that it has nothing to do with race.
Your insistence on insinuating endless silly nonsense while humorous in a sad way (about you), is not particularly inspiring.
Why not try using some reasoning for a change?
But again, I'll just remove all of his posts from now on so it's easier on all of us.
He's free to post elsewhere on the site. Just not on my articles, because he is just too dishonest/ignorant. Remember, this is the guy who kept insisting that when people like McCain and Petraeus said we should close Gitmo because it is a bad symbol, he quoted them saying so as evidence that we should close Gitmo ... for other reasons. Even though they gave no other reasons. And now he is saying that posts having nothing to do with race are evidence of racism.
He bring nothing useful or interesting to the discussions. He just wastes time and space. He's gone for good.
Of all the trolls on this site, he is only the second to achieve this distinction. And the first actual liberal to achieve it. Congrats, Mike. And good-bye.
What are you gonna do, not grace us with your brilliance?
That is amusing.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 15, 2009 07:52 PMSecond, the authorities say she wanted to use it to fund her operation.
I think it is more appropriate to say, if all of this is true about her, that she is just a nut. She shows all the classic signs of paranoia and other problems that are completely unrelated to political leanings.